Quantum Wave Cosmology updates 2009

[quantum_wave]

AN's reputation is well deserved and in this case he is absolutely right. If it was worthwhile then AN would have engaged with it as he has done on many many threads in the past. Anyone with a moderate amount of experience in physics can see that your ideas are worthless, as has been pointed out to you by a number of people.

You too have an agenda here. You don't reply to the topic, you pass judgment on what is worthwhile and what isn't, you and AN act like a tag team while you avoid the content and act as if it is what you portray it as, instead of what it is. I ask for discussion of ideas and neither of you discuss the ideas, instead you decide that they are not worth discussing but are worth labeling derogatorily.

This support for each other without any attention to the content or intention of the thread to open discussion of ideas is hijacking.

To continually return and make the same claims about my failure to answer questions is fallacious. Neither of you ask questions about the content, you ask questions that are straw men and then claim I am not responding. That is trolling.

 

[prometheus]

you and AN act like a tag team while you avoid the content and act as if it is what you portray it as, instead of what it is.

It would be a whole lot easier to respond to content if there actually was any. It's painful to watch you scrabble around making stuff up on the occasions that I have asked you relevant questions.

I ask for discussion of ideas and neither of you discuss the ideas, instead you decide that they are not worth discussing but are worth labeling derogatorily.

If you claim to have a vision then you must be able to see this logic - people have been thinking about these sorts of questions since the dawn of time. Have you not considered that the understanding we have now that is based on the scientific method might be better than something that someone just made up with no justification of any sort? You can call that derogatory if you like, but it's obvious to me and any reasonable person that the mainstream approach is the better one. Otherwise, it probably wouldn't be mainstream would it?

This support for each other without any attention to the content or intention of the thread to open discussion of ideas is hijacking.

If you look back into these threads you'll see that both myself and AN have take time to read what you've written and ask questions about it. You'll also notice that your answers were completely unsatisfactory.

To continually return and make the same claims about my failure to answer questions is fallacious. Neither of you ask questions about the content, you ask questions that are straw men and then claim I am not responding. That is trolling.

As I said previously, you want morons like RJ to come and pat you on the head and tell you how smart you are. Sorry, I'm not going to do that. QWC is a worthless dead end idea that will never make it even as far as protoscience, never mind science (in fact, if the moderator of this board did as good a job as the mod of the physics and maths forum I suspect these threads would be in pseudoscience at the very least. God knows that's a lot closer to where they belong than here). If you've got half a brain in your head you'll look back through these threads that are filled with very much gibberish and see that we're telling you the truth. Once you've realised this you may want to go ahead and learn some proper science. What do you do for a living, just out of interest.

 

[quantum_wave]

If you look back into these threads you'll see that both myself and AN have take time to read what you've written and ask questions about it. You'll also notice that your answers were completely unsatisfactory.

This is complete untrue.

As I said previously, you want morons like RJ to come and pat you on the head and tell you how smart you are. Sorry, I'm not going to do that. QWC is a worthless dead end idea that will never make it even as far as protoscience, never mind science (in fact, if the moderator of this board did as good a job as the mod of the physics and maths forum I suspect these threads would be in pseudoscience at the very least. God knows that's a lot closer to where they belong than here). If you've got half a brain in your head you'll look back through these threads that are filled with very much gibberish and see that we're telling you the truth. Once you've realised this you may want to go ahead and learn some proper science. What do you do for a living, just out of interest.

I'm putting you on ignore until the moderator addresses the issue.

 

[thinking]

QWC 2009 Three questions

What causes mass?

when protons and electrons become less energtic ( the slower these particles go the the more they can coeless

I'm thinking in terms of the plasma energy state of both protons and electrons

The Large Hardon Collider at CERN hopes to dig deeper into the past and reveal the source of all mass in the universe.

yeah but I don't think they will find many more particles , one -two maybe if their lucky

What causes gravity?

rotation , electromagnetics , mass

The General Theory of Relativity (GTR or GR) has math that describes it as spacetime that is curved by mass and energy.

space-time is a figment of mathematical imagination . it is the matter IN space that is warped , not space its self ?

put it this way , if space has some quality associated with it , I could then cut out a chunk of space and carry it , I can't do that obviously

and while space-time works , generally notice its not exact either

it can't explain why Mercury does what it does other to say that it does

understand what I'm saying or anybody ?

What caused the expansion of the observable universe?

assuming the Universe is really and actually expanding

when thought in terms of three dimensional thought is it though ?


quantum_world welcome to some who question as you do

 

[prometheus]

I'm putting you on ignore until the moderator addresses the issue.

Boo hoo. One less dullard that talks to me. Enjoy your hissy fit.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Your agenda is to apply peer pressure on the community to discourage the kind of discussion I am trying to encourage.

And what kind of discussion is that? I asked you "Are you claiming you haven't just typed those up off the top of your head? Are you claiming they are derived from postulates?" after you took offence I said your 'steps' were just made up assumptions. Why didn't you answer? Could it be that if the answer is "No, I made it up on the spot" then you know full well that the kind of discussion you're trying to encourage is not science, but trying to get suckers to say "Wow, you're so clever QWC!".

If you weren't just making this stuff up and you were working by the method done in actual science (ie Step 1 : Define a set of postulates. Step 2 : Using only those postulates rigorously derive their implications. Step 3 : Compare implications with observations) you'd have said so the first time I asked you. But instead you either ignore the question or somehow try to claim its irrelevant.

This is hijacking to promote your self appointed agenda to decide what is and what is not worthy of posting.

No, I'm pointing out to you and anyone reading that what you're doing isn't 'science', it doesn't have any of the hallmarks of the scientific method and it is the antithesis of what actual research involves. I assume most people come here to read and discuss science. Since your work isn't science and worse might fool people into thinking that's how actual scientific research is done, I'm saying so. It's not because I shout down people I view as smart or I'm worried you're going to topple mainstream physics, I don't think either of those about you and your work, I shout down people who from the outset make it clear all they want to do is swindle people. You are basically trying to fool people who don't know much about the scientific method into thinking you're doing valid science. I don't care for liars and I don't care for people who effectively try to poison the minds of people who can't yet tell the difference between your nonsense and actual science. Heaven forbid some 12 year old whose curious about science comes here, reads your garbage and then has their views of how science works warped because of it. As Prom has already pointed out, your crap doesn't wash with him or myself and I'd put large piles of cash on BenTheMan, Guest, DH, Temur, Rpenner etc having similar views, as we all know enough science to know you don't.

You are trolling.

You post crap, I'll call it crap. I've asked you questions which if you could answer I'd be quiet. What are your postulates? How are you deriving your results? Where's the rigour? If you post on a science forum but can't answer those its hardly a surprise if someone thinks you're lacking validity in your claims, now is it?

You post more, I've got more things to point at and say "Back up that claim" or "Where'd you get that result from?". If you can't answer them, why don't you spend more time working out the details of your theory and less time posting pages and pages of stuff which is baseless and you have made up off the top of your head? You avoid the entire scientific method then complain when people point that out?

On a science forum whose the troll, the one who says "I've got a theory but no justification, no derivation, no methodology, no results and I'm going to post loads and loads about it" or the one who says "That's not science"?

I ask for discussion of ideas and neither of you discuss the ideas, instead you decide that they are not worth discussing but are worth labeling derogatorily.

I'll ask you again then. Are you claiming your large list of 'steps' a bunch of posts further up are not simply things you've typed up off the top of your head? If so, how did you go about deriving them? Be explicit.

This support for each other without any attention to the content

But you have no content.If you simply make up a bunch of things as you go along, simply deciding what you feel is the most palatable answer to questions on topics you don't know much about how likely do you think it is to be worthwhile?

I asked you before, how do you quantify 'most likely' when talking about causes of the big bang? You claim your answer is the most likely but you can't even tell me how you measure likelihood! Could it be you mean what you find easiest to swallow?

To continually return and make the same claims about my failure to answer questions is fallacious. Neither of you ask questions about the content, you ask questions that are straw men and then claim I am not responding. That is trolling.

My question about whether you have any methodology to your list of 'steps' isn't a strawman. When someone in my department says "And my theory says [X] about [Y]" I ask "Why? How did you get from [Y] to [X]?". I ask you that and all you can do is ignore the question. I ask you how you justify you claim about 'most likely'. You ignore it.

What point is there us engaging in a discussion on the details of your 'work' when you have nothing to justify the details. You're wanting to talk about wall paper before you've even built the foundations of your house.

Is this too much of a subtle point for you? Suppose I said "I'm a genius at chemistry, though I've never done it before, and I've come up with an elixor for everlasting life! Want to have some?". Would you say "Sure!" and gulp it down or would you instead say "How about you tell me why you think it does that and how you made it". Jump in head first on the word of someone whose clearly not knowledgable or start at the beginning and work through it?

 

[quantum_wave]

AlphaNumeric, again you have failed to address the content and set up a whole bunch of straw men. Until the moderator addresses your hijacking and trolling I am putting you on ignore.

 

[quantum_wave]

As a point of clarity, I have both Prometheus and AlphaNumeric on Ignore and am no longer reading their posts. I hope the moderator will give this matter a fair review and not just take my word or their word about what has transpired.

Anyone who follows the thread will see that I have told it like it is as to how they have addressed this thread. They have never mentioned the ideas I have offered for discussion in any conscientious way. Always they are addressing the thread from an agenda that they decide what is worthy to post and nothing about the specifics ideas that I ask people to discuss.

If you follow the thread you know that my ideas address areas where science does not go, or at least where standard theory does not go. I want to discuss ideas about the cause of the initial expansion of our universe, the cause of mass, and the cause of gravity.

Refer to the OP and follow the thread before you decide that I am not doing what I say I am doing, i.e. trying to discuss ideas about those issues that science cannot yet answer.

If the community allows people of one orientation to suppress the discussion of ideas that come from another orientation then the community loses in the long run.

 

[quantum_wave]

when protons and electrons become less energtic ( the slower these particles go the the more they can coeless

I'm thinking in terms of the plasma energy state of both protons and electrons



yeah but I don't think they will find many more particles , one -two maybe if their lucky



rotation , electromagnetics , mass



space-time is a figment of mathematical imagination . it is the matter IN space that is warped , not space its self ?

put it this way , if space has some quality associated with it , I could then cut out a chunk of space and carry it , I can't do that obviously

and while space-time works , generally notice its not exact either

it can't explain why Mercury does what it does other to say that it does

understand what I'm saying or anybody ?





assuming the Universe is really and actually expanding

when thought in terms of three dimensional thought is it though ?


quantum_world welcome to some who question as you do

Thank you Thinking. There are many who question the cause of the big bang, the cause of gravity, and the cause of mass.

The ideas that I offer are for discussion purposes and I have been consistent in saying that all along. It is healthy for there to be different ideas even if that means ideas that go beyond where mainstream science is able to go. That is what my threads are about and have always been about. No one who reads them could get any other impression.

When there is such strenuous opposition to ideas it is a sign that those who are so boisterously objecting would have some alternative ideas to offer. At least it is reasonable for them to say specifically which idea they think is inconsistent with the data or observations.

I have asked the moderator to address the current accusations and give a fair review to what I am doing. Ideas are and always have been a part of science.

 

[D H]

I have asked the moderator to address the current accusations and give a fair review to what I am doing.

In this particular subforum of this particular forum? Good luck. This forum is pretty much unmoderated. That this thread is still here is prima facie evidence of the utter lack of moderation.

You don't have any axioms or any motivating physical evidence. You don't have any math. You don't have any specific predictions. In short, you don't have any science. All you have a bunch of hand waving; pages and pages and pages of hand waving.

Ideas are and always have been a part of science.

I suspect many Nobel prize winning scientists have had their fair share of crackpot notions. The difference between those Nobel winners and the real crackpots is immense. The Nobel winners are competent enough to recognize that the goofball idea they just had was utterly just that -- a goofball idea. Next!

Some reading material relevant to this thread:
http://www.cognitionandculture.net/...-calculations&catid=57:pascals-blog&Itemid=34
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/011800hth-behavior-incompetents.html

 

[quantum_wave]

In this particular subforum of this particular forum? Good luck. This forum is pretty much unmoderated. That this thread is still here is prima facie evidence of the utter lack of moderation.

You don't have any axioms or any motivating physical evidence. You don't have any math. You don't have any specific predictions. In short, you don't have any science. All you have a bunch of hand waving; pages and pages and pages of hand waving.


I suspect many Nobel prize winning scientists have had their fair share of crackpot notions. The difference between those Nobel winners and the real crackpots is immense. The Nobel winners are competent enough to recognize that the goofball idea they just had was utterly just that -- a goofball idea. Next!

Some reading material relevant to this thread:
http://www.cognitionandculture.net/...-calculations&catid=57:pascals-blog&Itemid=34
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/011800hth-behavior-incompetents.html

I read your links and there is a lot of truth to them.

Now let me respond to you and ask you to reply to my questions if you would. Can I get you to do that?

Hand waving or not, is there science that tells us what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe?

There are many ideas about what caused the big bang and none of them have the consensus or am I wrong. If I am wrong, and you being a new face on the thread, maybe you can tell me what caused the Big Bang?

If you can't then can you say if you think that a big crunch might have preceded the big bang. I know that is just one of many alternatives, but can you say that there is evidence that points to a different alternative?

What would that different alternative be? Do you have a suggestion about that?

Or do you reject any discussion about what came before the Big Bang and call all such discussion "hand waving"?

There are many who say that it is hand waving because they adhere strictly to BBT and General Relativity Theory which says there was no "before" the Big Bang and so any discussion about "before" is nonsense because space and time started with the Big Bang and so there was no "before".

Is that where you are coming from? Is that why you say that my thread is lots and lots of hand waving?

I refer you back to post #72 which goes back to the early steps in the speculation that space and time have always existed and that there was a cause of expansion that preceded the initial expansion. The big crunch is my preference.

The big crunch can be explained with some as yet undiscovered physics. Is it not allowed to suggest that there is some physics that we cannot observe that could cause a big crunch to burst into expansion? There had to be a cause, science doesn’t know what it was, so l am discussing it.

Do you plan to take the route of Prometheous and AlphaNumeric and make demands for math, and tests, and data, and all of the accouterments of a full blown theory when I am just trying to discuss ideas about what caused the big bang for starters?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric, again you have failed to address the content and set up a whole bunch of straw men. Until the moderator addresses your hijacking and trolling I am putting you on ignore.

I asked you how you derived your lengthy lists of steps. How is that ignoring your content? Infact, it's basically asking "How did you arrive at your content?". If you can't justify that then it means your content is worthless.

If you follow the thread you know that my ideas address areas where science does not go, or at least where standard theory does not go. I want to discuss ideas about the cause of the initial expansion of our universe, the cause of mass, and the cause of gravity. .

But without rhyme or reason to your 'content' its as valid as something you make up on the spot. How about : "Mass is formed by the phase change of aether as energy ripples converge and cause vortices to form at the locations where we view particles". Wow, it goes into areas science doesn't go! Shame I just made it up and so it's not worth discussing. Now if I could derive that idea from a base assumption, something simple like "All interial frames have equivalent physics" then it would be worth talking about. Otherwise why should I discuss that and not the idea "Mass is formed by the phase change of aether as energy ripples diverge and cause vortices to form at the locations where we view particles".

Basically you wish to talk about how you view science, but clearly you don't know it, either qualitatively or quantitatively.

 

[quantum_wave]

AN, I see you made a post that I can't read because you are on ignore. If as DH says there is no moderation I will know that in a day or two and take you off ignore and respond.

I hope I find that you answer the questions that I just asked DH. Why don't you try that in the mean time so when I take you off ignore there is some civil post from you that I can respond to without seeing your hand waving.

Here is what I asked DH:

Hand waving or not, is there science that tells us what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe?

There are many ideas about what caused the big bang and none of them have the consensus or am I wrong. If I am wrong, and you being a new face on the thread, maybe you can tell me what caused the Big Bang?

If you can't then can you say if you think that a big crunch might have preceded the big bang. I know that is just one of many alternatives, but can you say that there is evidence that points to a different alternative?

What would that different alternative be? Do you have a suggestion about that?

Or do you reject any discussion about what came before the Big Bang and call all such discussion "hand waving"?

There are many who say that it is hand waving because they adhere strictly to BBT and General Relativity Theory which says there was no "before" the Big Bang and so any discussion about "before" is nonsense because space and time started with the Big Bang and so there was no "before".

Is that where you are coming from? Is that why you say that my thread is lots and lots of hand waving?

I refer you back to post #72 which goes back to the early steps in the speculation that space and time have always existed and that there was a cause of expansion that preceded the initial expansion. The big crunch is my preference.

The big crunch can be explained with some as yet undiscovered physics. Is it not allowed to suggest that there is some physics that we cannot observe that could cause a big crunch to burst into expansion? There had to be a cause, science doesn’t know what it was, so l am discussing it.

 

[D H]

Here is what I asked DH:

Hand waving or not, is there science that tells us what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe?

Is it not allowed to suggest that there is some physics that we cannot observe that could cause a big crunch to burst into expansion? There had to be a cause, science doesn’t know what it was, so l am discussing it.

The problem is that you are not discussing it scientifically. You have an incredibly convoluted just-so story instead. I see a less difference between your narrative and a coyote creation story versus your narrative and string theory. While none of these three, string theory, creation myths, and QWC, is science (yet), one of the three is pre-scientific. The other two are just creation stories. String theory is based on scientific techniques, uses the language of science (mathematics), and fully intends on becoming science. String theorists are more than willing to oblige when challenged to express their ideas mathematically. These challenges are their bread and butter.

 

[quantum_wave]

The problem is that you are not discussing it scientifically. You have an incredibly convoluted just-so story instead. I see a less difference between your narrative and a coyote creation story versus your narrative and string theory. While none of these three, string theory, creation myths, and QWC, is science (yet), one of the three is pre-scientific. The other two are just creation stories. String theory is based on scientific techniques, uses the language of science (mathematics), and fully intends on becoming science. String theorists are more than willing to oblige when challenged to express their ideas mathematically. These challenges are their bread and butter.

Is that your opinion or have you got some reason to believe that String Theory will work better than the big crunch alternative?

I am finally getting the feeling that you and maybe others posting on my thread know a tad about String Theory. Does String Theory mention what the physical conditions were before the Big Bang?

QWC says that space and time pre-existed the big bang event whatever that event was. Am I in compliance with the preconditions from which ST is derived? Or does ST take the position that space and time came into being with the big event the started our initial expansion?

Is there any consideration given to entropy in String Theory? Can you briefly describe it if so? If not would you call string theory an inflationary cosmology? Eternal inflation maybe?

 

[quantum_wave]

This post is to the community, including the recent posters who consider me too ignorant to talk about ideas. There are indications that most of us fall in that category in the minds of these two or three. My observation is that when minds get so focused on a theory like BBT/GR, or String Theory that they go to great extremes to silence any alternative thinking, there is something unsettling. Some of us know that ST has been taking some heat for not being able to make predictions that can be tested. I know that, but that has been the case for many years. Yet I run into two or three who do the math and read the book, maybe even do cutting edge math and write some of the book, and they go out of their way to defend and protect the community from me. That is unsettling because I just want to discuss ideas about the universe from the bottom up.

They don’t understand what is meant by building from the bottom up I guess.

Starting cosmology from the bottom up is starting from where science stops and speculation begins. You talk about ideas, brainstorm them, and arrive at a consensus as to which ideas have merit. I have been doing it for a long time now and QWC has evolved to places where my detractors finally get their clothing so twisty that it cuts off blood circulation to their brains. BTW, I’m also not allowed to talk about them that way either I suppose, even though they can cast aspersions in my direction that make such a mild comment seem … mild.

You have noticed that the two or three to whom I refer have insisted that I personally am not qualified to talk about speculative ideas because I don’t have a foundation in the body of knowledge that is science. They talk at me and about me as if I just staggered in off the street and begged a cup of coffee, and then started chatting about QWC. They are thinking shallowly. I didn’t just stagger in off the street. I staggered in off the street many years ago while they were learning about things that they have concluded cannot be wrong.

And yet, ask them about the point where science leaves off and speculation begins and they act like I was from Mars. That attitude speaks volumes about their comfort level with what they are steeped in, and if that is not the case, then their attitude toward anyone who wants to speculate is unexplained.

Maybe, and this is just speculation, they are of the opinion that I (me personally) can’t possibly place my finger on where science leaves off.

Here is a blunt question that I have asked ten times in this thread alone: What was the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe? And I go on to say that I like the idea that the initial expansion was preceded by a big crunch.

That question is the point where science leaves off and speculation begins, even if I am not allowed to say so because I don’t know all of the science that got us to the point where science cannot go. Neither do they. Cosmology is all about speculation.

The reason that I use one of the several major contenders for the eminent position of “before” the big bang is simple. I have brainstormed it with people who frequent science forums, read many threads about the subject, done hundreds if not thousands of searches and read pages on the subject from each search, and I personally have concluded that after all of the brainstorming and reading, the best answer is a big crunch.

I say that, put it out there and ask for reasons that is not the best idea, and ask for other ideas and then I ask them questions about their ideas and favorite alternatives, and I compare their answers with the answers derived from my brainstorming sessions on the net and off the net and I am ready to change my opinion if there is good support for an alternative. That is exactly how I came up with the big crunch as my favorite alternative.

Anyone following my threads knows that no one, not even the current two smart posters has offered any convincing reason why a big crunch is not a worthy point to start building from the bottom up.

To the extent that you in this community agree with me, then go see the steps of speculation that I list in post # 93 http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2271790&postcount=93 and #94 and see what the steps of speculation are if you start with a big crunch.

I’m just saying that something preceded the big bang and if it was a big crunch then the speculative ideas I list are reasonable and responsible bottom up ideas. If they are not, point to one that is not reasonable and say how it is inconsistent with observations, and say what those observations are. Or offer an alternative that relates to physical observations. I don’t care if those observations are scattering data from high energy collisions of particles or measurements made with precision instruments or whatever.

 

[D H]

Is that your opinion or have you got some reason to believe that String Theory will work better than the big crunch alternative?

I never said anything of the sort. I specifically said that string theory is pre-scientific. String theory has yet to justify itself in the form of a prediction

• that differs in some way distinguishes string theory from other competing theories,
• that results in some experiment to test the prediction, and
• that the outcome of this experiment agrees with the prediction.

Just because no existing scientific theory does explain what happened in the first fleeting moments after the big bang, and what (if anything) preceded the big bang does not mean that it is open season for Joe Crackpot and his Theory of the Metaverse.

I do not understand the motivation that leads so many to come up with these ill-founded, non-scientific, non-descriptive just-so stories in the first place. Even less understandable is the sheer arrogance in saying something like "I barely passed high school algebra. However, I know my theory is correct. All I need from you physicists is some help in getting the math right." I don't know if this is what you are saying, quantum_wave. It most certainly is exactly what a lot of the Joe Crackpots out there do say.

 

[quantum_wave]

...

I do not understand the motivation that leads so many to come up with these ill-founded, non-scientific, non-descriptive just-so stories in the first place. Even less understandable is the sheer arrogance in saying something like "I barely passed high school algebra. However, I know my theory is correct. All I need from you physicists is some help in getting the math right." I don't know if this is what you are saying, quantum_wave. It most certainly is exactly what a lot of the Joe Crackpots out there do say.

In the many years that I have been actively looking, I have come across all kinds. The crack pots and cranks are easy to identify. If you can't tell that I am one then I am not.

I do understand the motivation and because I do and you don't explains why you are hesitant to participate in the intention of my thread.

I'm not sure that this applies to you DH, but sometimes I think the hesitation is that by thinking about cosmology from the bottom up people don't know where to start. I simply start where science leaves off, i.e. what is the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe. Does that question make your press your lips and look off into the distance? If not, you don't understand the motivation.

 

[D H]

In the many years that I have been actively looking, I have come across all kinds. The crack pots and cranks are easy to identify. If you can't tell that I am one then I am not.

I was being nice in my previous post. But, since you asked, Yep. You fit the bill to a T.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I simply start where science leaves off, i.e. what is the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe.

But you simply make it up as you go along, without any methodology or logic. You have zero justification for any of your claims. You say QWC says there was something before the big bang. Why? What justification have you for that? Could you not just as easily have said "QWC says there was nothing before the BB"? You mentions negative energy density somewhere, many posts ago. Why negative? Why not positive? What reason have you got for any of your 'results' over any other possible result you could have given?

I am finally getting the feeling that you and maybe others posting on my thread know a tad about String Theory. Does String Theory mention what the physical conditions were before the Big Bang?

No. String theory provides mechanism by which we might describe a process which looks like the BB but it doesn't (yet) say if such a mechanism actually happened or not. String theory has the ability to describe such things, if required. You have no mechanism by which to describe such phenomena and you just assume anything you want.

QWC says that space and time pre-existed the big bang event whatever that event was.

No, you say space and time pre-existed. There's no 'QWC says' here, because that implies you are deriving implications of the postulates of QWC, which you aren't. When a physicist says "Special relativity says relative velocities lead to time dilation" he doesn't mean "I proclaim that special relativity says relative velocities lead to time dilation" he means "From the postulates of special relativity, which do not themselves mention time dilation at all, we find that an inevitable implication is that relative motion leads to time dilation". Special relativity's postulates unavoidably lead to new conclusions, they are not put in by hand. QWC is nothing but things you've put in by hand. So when you say "QWC says..." you mean "I'm just going to tell you that some theory I can't give you says....". It's like religious people reading too much into the Bible and saying "Oh look, the Bible says its going to rain on July 3rd 2008". No, it doesn't, you simply claim it does.

Am I in compliance with the preconditions from which ST is derived? Or does ST take the position that space and time came into being with the big event the started our initial expansion?

String theory doesn't address those questions yet in a way which is satisfactory. Unlike you, physicists have to show that their postulates lead through to a conclusion before saying "My theory says....".

Is there any consideration given to entropy in String Theory? Can you briefly describe it if so?

Yes, it's described in the same manner as in any other physics, you use things like ensembles and partition functions. And don't blame me if you don't know what those words mean.

String theory correctly gives the entropy of black holes but from a microstate counting method, rather than the classical method used in GR. Now the postulates of string theory don't say anything about gravity, never mind black holes, their thermodynamics and entropy, but since string theorists can derive from those postulates systems which describe black holes and give thermodynamical properties, they can say "String theory describes black hole thermodynamics". It's a justified claim. If they'd said it 20 years ago when noone had done the work they would have been making baseless claims.

If not would you call string theory an inflationary cosmology? Eternal inflation maybe?

Do you even know what string theory is about?! Cosmology is just a tiny tiny section of string theory, it's a nice by-product. String theory is about finding a quantum theory of gravity which links into usual particle physics. String theory didn't start out as a cosmology description, the postulates of string theory say nothing about gravity. It was only after considerable work that people found it could be used to describe cosmology in novel ways. Hence they are justified in saying "String theory provides ways to do cosmology which other theories do not". Your claims about QWC doing similar are just "Believe me because I say so". If I said I could fly, would you believe me?